Integration review
Whether coaching, medical, analytics, recruitment and leadership feed the same decisions or only sit side by side. I follow real decisions to see whether the information behind them reaches the room where they are made.
The tools I use
The Wortmann Methodology
The Wortmann Methodology is a structural investigation into whether an organisation works the way it says it does. It looks at the organisation as a whole: the board, the management and operations, and the people who carry out the sport, and how they connect.
I use it when an organisation shows strategic drift, a fractured culture, or a gap between what leadership intends and what happens on the floor. Sometimes those in charge sense something is wrong without being able to name it. Sometimes they never knew.
It examines the organisation and not the people in it. I test whether the stated vision is actually lived at each level, map where the parts of the organisation rub against each other, and show where the structure creates bottlenecks.
I begin by asking why the organisation exists, and I keep asking why until the answer reaches a structure or a process. I walk the floor, observe the daily operation, and read the organisation from top to bottom.
What I deliver is a written report with the evidence behind each finding. It identifies the problem and puts it on the table. It does not judge anyone and it does not prescribe the answer. Where it helps, it can show that a gap could be closed by changing the vision at management level, or by strengthening it where it is not lived.
Once the problem is on the table, the people involved can discuss it and decide what to change. A report on restructuring is a separate step, added only if the client wants one.
A coach who holds a different vision from the organisation is a finding about the organisation. It is not a reason to dismiss anyone.
Independent technical and operational assessment
This is a separate piece of work, agreed and contracted separately. I use it when leadership faces a specific decision and wants an unclouded view of where its setup stands.
It looks at three things: the technical delivery, the operational setup, and the efficiency of the structure. It assesses execution against high-performance standards. It assesses the function of a post or a department as a whole, never the person in it.
It answers a different question from the Wortmann Methodology. That one asks whether the organisation does what it says. This one asks whether what it does is strong.
What else I examine
What I examine depends on what your organisation needs.
Why each function exists
The purpose of each post and department, what it changes, and how it fits with the rest. I keep asking why until the answer reaches a structure or a process, never a person.
Decision rights and accountability
Who decides what, and who answers for it in practice, compared with what the documents say.
Dependency and resilience
What the organisation depends on, whether that is one funder, one owner, one venue, one executive or a handful of volunteers, and what happens if any of them goes.
Succession and transition
Where knowledge and authority sit, and what breaks if a chair, a director or a head coach leaves.
Workforce continuity
Contracts, retention, volunteer load, and how knowledge passes from one person to the next.
Voice and culture
Whether athletes, staff and volunteers can raise concerns, and whether anything happens when they do. I do not make legal findings about harassment or discrimination.
Readiness and capacity
Whether the organisation is ready for growth, a new facility, a change of ownership, a new league, or the demand that follows a major event.
Follow-through
Whether earlier recommendations were actually carried out, and who owns each one.
Data and technology
Whether the data the organisation collects is actually used in its decisions, and who controls it. I look at practice and give no legal opinion.
Retrospective review
How a failure came about, reconstructed from what happened. It is kept clearly apart from a disciplinary or criminal investigation.
Siloed departments, and one way I have solved it
I improved the communication between the departments and shifted the responsibility for planning and execution to all of them. These were major changes in the culture, and they changed the outcome.
Without staff who understand why it matters and an organisation that backs it, a new structure changes nothing.
Solutions are always carried out with the consent and with the help of the organisation.